Denis.g.rancourt

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia. When you get a chance, drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself. You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp.

• Welcome is a good place to start.
• Wikipedia:Tutorial runs through all the basics.
• Wikipedia:How does one edit a page gives editing help.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style gives formatting info.
• Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but don't try to read it all now.
• Wikipedia:Help covers a broad range of useful topics.
• Wikipedia:Help desk is a place to ask questions.
• Wikipedia:Show preview explains how to double-check your edits before saving.

You should also feel free to drop me a question on my talk page. I'll answer if I'm here.

Happy editing, Hornandsoccer_Contribs^Talk 02:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Academic squatting

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Academic squatting, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Academic squatting. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. --Muchness 03:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I have listed this article for deletion at WP:AFD. My concern is that the article does not provide reliable sources to demonstrate that the term is currently in widespread usage. Please feel free to edit the article and join the AFD discussion if you wish to address these concerns. Thanks and regards. --Muchness 17:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Virgil Grandfield

The article Virgil Grandfield has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kindle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Your recent editing history at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

Since you're editing in the topic area and have expressed an interest in WP:ARBCC, that links to the full detail of the case, and see below for notification of sanctions. Regards, . dave souza, talk 15:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Contributing to an AfD

Hi! Thank you for your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie V. Woodcock. I had searched Google Scholar using Woodcock's full name and came up with many fewer citations. You may want to read up on procedures and formatting when contributing to an AfD. YoPienso (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

I see you are getting a lot of reversions at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. The "consensus" (whatever that means) on Wikipedia is that the IPCC is infallible. As a scientist, I don't think that anyone or anything is infallible. Possibly you agree? Biscuittin (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps my question was too convoluted. Anyway, I have read this [1] and I am in broad agreement with it. Biscuittin (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Leslie V. Woodcock

Thanks for your explanation at Talk:Leslie V. Woodcock. Have you seen this? [2] Biscuittin (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Denis. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia and my attention was called to what is going on at ANI and Ontario Civil Liberties Association by the posting at COIN, of which you were notified above.

You are editing here under your real name, and you have clearly edited extensively, and created articles, where you have a conflict of interest in Wikipedia, as we define that.

I'm writing to you in the hope that you would be open to having a calm discussion about COI editing in Wikipedia. I'm not interested in getting involved in any specific content dispute, and would appreciate if you don't bring that stuff up, nor the behavior of other editors. I'm here just to discuss how the Wikipedia community thinks about COI, and your editing in light of that. I know it is hard to step back when things are "hot" but I often find that if editors can step back a bit and reflect, things can often be reset and can move forward on a better footing.

I'll start by providing you with our formal notice of the relevant policies and guidelines, and will have some comments for you below, to open the discussion.

We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
• instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Based on your academic background, I reckon it is safe to assume that you are familiar with management of COI, yes? Please do read the links above (especially WP:COI) that lay out how COI management works in Wikipedia (which is not like other places, for several reasons) and then if you would be so kind as to reply here, perhaps we can discuss the ways that the Wikipedia community thinks about COI, so we are on the same page with that, and then if anything is unclear, we can discuss your editing in light of that. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Jytdog, because of a recent editing conflict, I have now read the COI WP guidelines. I have since and will refrain from direct-article edits where there is any potential COI. That said, my own belief is that edits for "weak" COI (no money involved, non-profit organization article) (and in general when COI content occurs) should be looked at in terms of the content itself for NPOV, not simply delete all such content without discussion or consensus, as has unfortunately been practiced in the recent conflict. Also, it is important to note that all my edits in question were done transparently and are recorded in the histories, where my activities are an open book and done in my person under my own name. I hear your concern and I thank you for your message. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for writing back graciously. I am glad you have more of a handle on how we think about COI here in WP. If I may, I would like to clarify a few things, and request a few things....

The use of Wikipedia for any sort of advocacy is against policy, per WP:NOTADVOCACY. (please do read that) Conflict of interest is just a subset of the general category of advocacy. The classic case of COI is someone working for a company, and coming to WP to write an article about that company (just to give the company more visibility) and perhaps also to say how great the company and its products are, maybe remove negative information about them, and perhaps also to add negative content to articles about competitors or competing products. Financially driven promotion or denigration. What that means in terms of content, which is we all care about - it means writing content that violates NPOV (use colorful language, over-emphasizes some things and omits others, etc) and uses no sourcing, or poor sourcing. In terms of the effect on content, advocacy editors make the exact same sorts of edits. Do you see what I mean? If you want to see more about that, please read WP:ADVOCACY and WP:TENDENTIOUS which are very useful essays about advocacy and how advocacy-driven editors tend to behave.

In any case, I hope you will accept that in Wikipedia, you have a COI with regard to Ontario Civil Liberties Association and with regard to any legal cases related to your work there. With regard to any people and litigation please also keep in mind WP:BLPCOI which is policy. If you do accept that, will you please add a disclosure to your User page of your role at OCLA and any Wikipedia articles you have edited or worked on, that are relevant to that?

There are a few more things I would like to discuss (if you remain open to talking) but I will pause here to see if you have any responses....Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I do want to add, that since you have posted at ANI and your prior editing under a COI has become more widely known in the community, you can expect some blowback. There are some editors here who are intolerant of, and react very harshly to, COI editing, and in addition to that and maybe mixed in with that, there is now legitimate scrutiny of your past editing going on as well (not driven by upsetness over COI editing, but dealing with possible content-policy violations as I discussed above). I am sorry about that. As a word of advice, if you are able to show restraint and just let the blowback pass, and try to hear the critique coming from editors who are giving you legitimate criticism (and yes, you will have to think carefully to sort out the wheat from the chaff for a while), and be careful about following the COI guideline going forward, you will be OK. You will. If you react emotionally and defensively now, it will only make things worse for you and for everybody else. I hope that makes sense, hard as it may be... Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC) (tweaked that a bit Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC))

Yes, Jytdog, thank you for the follow up and advice. I have added a conflict section at the top of my user page, following your suggestion. I think everything is now in place to continue moving forward. My only recent regret is a so-far lack of Administration oversight in my ANI. I'm learning. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually you have admins weighing in there. For example, Drmies is one of our best editors, and one of our best admins, and is also currently an Arbitrator (kind of a supreme court judge here). Anything that Drmies says or does, you should take to heart, and if you don't understand something Drmies says or does (including at the ANI), you should ask them about it. (You will generally find that people are happy to talk here, if you approach them with a truly open ear and with authentic questions) Which brings me to Connie Fournier. It seems pretty clear that your COI is present there too. Above, I asked you to disclose any articles you have edited under a COI, and you didn't include that one on your user page, nor articles in which you made edits related to Fournier... nor Jeff Schmidt (writer)... not sure if there are others. (And by the way, if I were you I would self-revert what you did here on the Fournier article....)

But in any case, please do consider further what you should disclose about COI editing. When that is done, I would like to talk with you a bit about the 2nd step of the COI management process here - the "peer review" part. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the OCLA for which I volunteer gave a prize to Connie Fournier. I think that is enough distance. Drmies has not treated me professionally in his edits and Talk on Fournier and I don't agree with his edit content at all, so I would rather that one was argued out in the community if need be. I created the Jeff Schmidt article because at the time I knew of his case and had written a support letter. I will add it. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Added Schmidt. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Denis. I have told you that Drmies is a very respected editor here. You have said that you read the COI guideline, which explains how COI can often cloud the judgement of editors as they approach a topic where they have a conflict (and which in your case, is also something you are very passionate about). Things are going to be very rocky for you if you cannot be self-aware, and reflective. I am not going to get involved in the content dispute at the Fournier article, but I again urge you to step back and reconsider what Drmies has said and done, and ask them about anything they said or did with which you disagree, and really listen to the answer. I am not going to push any harder on that, other than to re-iterate that if you remain combative and unreflective of the way your passion and conflict are affecting your editing and interactions with other editors, things are going to get more rocky going forward here in Wikipedia, not less. I do understand that you deal with a lot of controversy in the real world. The kind of "rockiness" I am talking about here is not about content per se or what you think -- it is about how you are behaving in relation to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I hope you can see the difference.

Finishing this disclosure piece of things, I am going to include a tag on the talk page of the relevant articles, so that your disclosure is made both on your user page and locally at the articles; this is optimum disclosure.

I am going to move on to the peer review thing now, and will open a new subsection for that, as this one has gotten too long. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but there is more that you haven't disclosed:

• You created the article on your book: Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism (struck Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC))
• (Quick answer: You may have missed THIS. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC))
• You created an article on your PhD mentor: James Maurice Daniels
• (Quick answer: I received my PhD in 1984 (more than 30 years ago) and left Toronto that year. I have not worked with him since. Daniels may be dead for all I know. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC))

And I don't know what else. Please, in good faith, disclose the articles that you have edited or created under a conflict. Please don't make this be an antagonistic process. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, I struck the one above about the book and I apologize for my mistake. On the other one, per the COI guideline, creating or editing an article about someone you know is considered COI editing in WP. ( See WP:COISELF) The Daniels article clearly falls in that bucket. Will you please acknowledge that instead of being combative? I really do want to help you get grounded on how COI works in Wikipedia so that you can have a more peaceful and productive time here going forward. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I'm on it. Thanks for the clarification. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer review piece

OK, so the "peer review" piece of COI management may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will (I hope) make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and viola there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no standard academic peer review.

What we ask editors who have a COI to do, is a) if you create an article related to your COI, disclose your COI on the Talk page of the draft, and submit it through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed by neutral editors with your COI in mind, before it publishes. b) And if you want to change content in an existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the the affected articles - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request. Please let me know that you understand this and will follow it going forward... and please let me know if you have any questions about it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Will you please respond to this? This is really important, going forward. Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Jytdog, thanks for the reminder to get back to you on these general points. Yes, I believe I understand your explanations, and the principle involved in the procedure, and yes I plan to follow this. When I do, I will remember to review these notes again before I start. Thanks for accompanying me in these recent events. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thank you for putting up with me. :) Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism

The article Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Previously deleted article with only one reliable source -- that being the Times of India. Other than that, the article fails WP:NBOOKS miserably. There isn't exactly much about to allow the article to be expanded, other than citing the book itself.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOCK

When I was reviewing your edits and looking at the relevant articles' editing history, I noticed a lot of IP editing that was consistent with yours. This has also been pointed out at the ANI you started. I don't know if you are familiar with our WP:SOCK policy, but it is not OK to edit while logged out if it misleads other editors to think that someone without a COI is editing. I am not saying you did it (if you did it) for that reason, but if you did happen to edit articles where you have a COI while you were logged out, per the COI guideline you should have disclosed that when you did it, and you should go retroactively disclose it now. I hope that makes sense. I hope you can see the underlying ethics issues here, based on our discussion above. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism - book cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism - book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Book cover of Beyond the Promised Land.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Book cover of Beyond the Promised Land.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Denis.g.rancourt. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctlons alert - climate change

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Climate change, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User space

Please do not restore the WP:POLEMIC I just removed from your userpage. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article"". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 April 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Should an article in the journal Energy and Environment be considered a "peer-reviewed article", to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

nicknames

You can call me whatever you like, but in the interests of helping others follow along, most people call me NAEG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Refactoring talkpage comments

People are allowed to Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, however, if you don't think what they did improves your comments you are free to revert their changes. -Obsidi (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It was too late for the auto-revert. Anyway, my complaint made him fix it and changed his behaviour. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Made me fix it only. If you assume good faith, then I was trying to be helpful, which I will continue to do when it seems likely to help. If it doesn't, then fine, revert or ask me to. But remember to assume good faith even I was half assed stupid despite good intentions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

More attention needed to ARBCC principles requirement to assume good faith

Please work MUCH HARDER at not taking overt or implied digs at other editors good faith. Recent examples include

• 14:02 April 8, 2017 "* * * difficult to take many of the stated questions at face value. Just saying."
• 21:30, April 7, 2017 "* * * your artificial cutoff is in-effect an error-generating device to remove list members."
• 01:06, April 7, 2017 "* * * Your suggestion in-effect applies BLP as a pretext to exclude someone from the list * * * "

I have confidence you can make your points without challenging other editors' integrity, and in fact, you are on notice about the requirement to assume good faith as stated in the principles in the ARBCC case. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I plan to continue pointing out any negative and unwanted effects of implementation of various Talk proposals. Your concern is an over reaction that can have the effect of putting a chill on valid expressed points. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Denis.g.rancourt. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Denis.g.rancourt. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Denis.g.rancourt. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)